so are there other criminals/scumbags you'd just assume see lined up and shot into an open grave? what other crimes do you feel are worthy of the death penalty? car theft? robbery? rape? selling pot? certainly these things are burdens on society, should we just kill these criminals too? one strike and you're out?

Irving, you think this dude was a one striker?

And as I said, I wouldn't want it this way all the time, but I'm certainly not up in arms about it now. We're a long way from Kosovo here. I'm mean my God, sometimes I wonder about the perspective of people on these boards. Wasting this guy tomorrow is not going to lead to yellow badges on homosexuals next week.

would that the world were actually this simple. only bad people do bad things, and only good people do good things, and good people never do bad things.

that's how it is in Simple World.

No it's not a naive statement. It's the fact you are either missing the point, or refusing to acknowledge it to further your "agenda". I am not advocating this law. I'm saying this particular guy was a dirtbag, karma's a bitch, enjoy Hell.

Oh my god. What planet are you on exactly?? Were you even able to type that with a straight face? Are you in fact saying that we are on the cusp of a totalitarian state equalling at minimum Bosnia, and possibly the Third Reich?

Dude, seriously, shut your computer off, leave the cell phone behind. Hop on a plane to Montana, take one of those dude ranch vacations. You're over-whelmed.

No it's not a naive statement. It's the fact you are either missing the point, or refusing to acknowledge it to further your "agenda". I am not advocating this law. I'm saying this particular guy was a dirtbag, karma's a bitch, enjoy Hell.

and that's why we don't use emotion and anger and vegence to determine what is and what isn't acceptable punishments for crimes. we have laws for such things in order to ensure that all citizens are treated fairly.

and, yes, if you think all carjackers are sociopaths who'd just assume hack you into little pieces as steal your CD player, then you *really* need to get out and meet some people. it's incredibly naive to think all criminals are the same and all crimes are the same. the justice system doesn't do that, though it seems as if you have no problems treating everyone the same so long as they meet your "sociopath" criteria -- which, by your own words, means they could be a killer or a carjackers. doesn't matter! they suck! let 'em fry!

don't know what "agenda" you're talking about, but the "agenda" i'm sensing from you is one of white suburban privilege.

But it has already been determined that they WEREN'T following that car. He was convicted for the simple charge that he should have ANTICIPATED that his friend would shoot the victim. How in the world could he have anticipated that? They were on their way home!

Oh my god. What planet are you on exactly?? Were you even able to type that with a straight face? Are you in fact saying that we are on the cusp of a totalitarian state equalling at minimum Bosnia, and possibly the Third Reich?

Dude, seriously, shut your computer off, leave the cell phone behind. Hop on a plane to Montana, take one of those dude ranch vacations. You're over-whelmed.

Snowlock, i never mind what you actually say, but the manner in which you type is incredibly offensive. you really need to tone it down. it's only because i'm able to read past your histrionic melodramatics and see the fact that you are an intelligent person that i respond to your posts.

yes, when the rule of law is applied differently to different people, then this is one of the signs of a totalitarian state. when individual rights are swept aside because people represent "burdens on society," then you have the beginnings of a totalitarian state. the price of liberty is eternal vigilence.

"Dillard and Steen both testified that there was no discussion that he would rob or kill LaHood and that Brown was acting independently."

This is from the article, and these are I'd guess the prosecution's star witnesses (so I guess Foster is also guilty of having shady friends, let's lynch him for that crime). If the shooter acted on his own then clearly any law treating Foster as an accomplice in this particular crime (not the robberies or other incidents) is unjust.

Reading comoprehension? CAREFUL. You see where I acknowledge you don't when I say "no, you don't." Someone needs to take their own advice, perhaps.

Sorry, but your response to my first paragraph was plain false.

"You see where I acknowledge you don't when I say 'no, you don't.'" <-- I can't make sense of that, but that could be me.

Quote:

No that's not how it works normally, necessarily. What about conspiracy cases when the guy who hires another guy gets a longer prison term than the guy who pulls the trigger. Or what about the guy who is serving a life sentance, the same as a killer, when all they did was rob a convenience store three times and got nailed on a three-strikes-you're-out law?

The "three-strikes-you're-out law" is unique to the USA. I think such law is crap, and only adds to the problem that you need more and more prisons. You get a life sentence for stealing some money, or because you didn't pay your ticket the third rime?
This isn't a case where one ordered the other to kill a person.

Yes, they decided to rob some people, which they should, and have been, prosecuted for. But no, their intention was not to kill someone. The reason they had this gun was because you don't go somewhere, raise your fists and say: "Give me all your money, or I'll slap you in the face!"
But that's not important. Important is that the only person who got out of the car and pulled the trigger was Brown. He was the nutjob who killed the person.
To suggest that Foster's intention was to kill a person, or he approved of what happened is non-provable, and assumption is no evidence. So you can't sentence him for that - except you are living in Texas.

We aren't discussing a conspiracy case here.

Quote:

That's just it, no one I know, and lets not be so silly as to bring race into this, does this. Decent everyday human beings do not carjack. It's the sociopaths and the psychopaths that do this, and no amount of prison time is going to fix them. It's the rabid dog principle.

I didn't bring up race at all.

It was a response to your:

Quote:

And it's really easy to sit there in your dorm room and judge them on that I'm sure.

You assume, I assume, we both might be wrong.

Your view about rehabilitation, resocialisation and "One time a criminal, always a criminal" is simplistic, generalising and long outdated.

You should do some research on that.
From that article it's not even clear how it exactly came to the stupid idea of going and rob people. Only information is that they got drunk and stoned and decided to go out and rob some people. It's inexcusable to be that stupid, but it's a sad state of affairs to write these people off entirely and wish them all dead.

Quote:

Dude, I don't know where you got that figure from, be it yesterday or a while ago, it's b.s. How do I prove it? I ride in cars without guns every day. All kinds of people's cars.

As I said, it's a statistic. A statistic doesn't mean that you literally go and count 1, 2, 3, a gun, 1, 2, 3, a gun..., you should know that. But this isn't too important, it should just give a hint that the "Wrong time, wrong place" theory isn't that off.
I've heard about this figure in response to why police is so damn carefully when approaching a car.